For Redskins, is it realistic to move to another city?

The Baltimore Colts became the Indianapolis Colts on March 29, 1984 after a sneaky, middle of the night move from the east coast to the midwest. Could something similar happen with the Washington Redskins?

Before any fans panic, I ask that you hear me out. I’ve been a fan of the Washington Redskins for more than fifty-five years and I am not about to trade in my fandom anytime soon, if ever.  However, that fandom demands some loyalty from the team – the relationship is not a one way street. There are a number of countless Redskins fans throughout the world and all of them are very passionate about the burgundy and gold. I am one of them. I’ll have more thoughts on that subject at the end of this opinion piece.

Rick Snider of the Washington Post recently produced a poll on social media and basically asked Redskins fans if they preferred that the team leave Washington and acquire a new franchise within a few years? The results were shocking. Stunning, in fact. I thought most fans would reject such an idea (my thinking was 75 percent), but nearly three-fourths of the fans supported the idea. This is simply remarkable. For fans who have been around for several decades, this poll had to be an eye-opening surprise. For many in the aging fan pool, seeing the Redskins leave town would be akin to Art Modell leaving Cleveland or Bob Irsay fleeing Baltimore in the middle of the night.

Younger generations dominate social media for the most part and young Redskins fans were not able to witness those glorious Super Bowl seasons for the storied franchise. So it is entirely possible that most of them simply desire to have a new team and new ownership after watching an inept football program flounder each season at FedEx Field. Who can blame them? Watching a bumbling and stumbling owner produce a porous team over nineteen years tends to take a toll on loyalty and support. However, is wishing for the entire team to leave and obtaining a new franchise a realistic option?

The dystopian atmosphere created by the ownership of Dan Snyder has obviously affected a younger legion of fans for nearly two decades now.  It has also strained the relationships of fans who have been loyal to the burgundy and gold for far longer. Our own Ian Cummings had a detailed look at Snyder in mid-January and it highlighted the many complex issues and leadership qualities that encompass the oft-maligned Redskins owner. Team president Bruce Allen has been the target of ire from team fans in recent months, but he has ignored their “overtures”. In light of everything, could the team actually move to another city?

Let’s take a collective deep breath at this time and examine it logically and realistically. First and foremost, the Redskins are staying put. It’s that simple. Dan Snyder was born and raised in within a few miles of Redskins Park and this is his home. He certainly is not a candidate for “Owner of the Year”, but his loyalty to the DMV will not waver. This is not to throw any cold water on Rick Snider’s poll, but a Redskins move is not going to happen. An existing franchise or new football team will not replace the Redskins. There it is – fully abstracted for you and easy to understand. End of story.

As promised earlier in this piece, here are my thoughts. I would love to have a new owner, but it won’t happen unless Mr. Snyder commits an egregious error as we recently witnessed with former Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson. My best answer is to roll with it and hope for the best. Support the team. Be a fan who never quits cheering enthusiastically for the Redskins.  Encourage the players whenever you have the opportunity to do so and leave the negativity at home. Snyder could mature into a responsible owner in the coming years and become the kind of person who hires the best personnel at Redskins Park. Such a process doesn’t happen overnight and it will take time, so let’s hope for the best and (happily) realize the Redskins are here to stay.